Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000
ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 1481–1490

29th International Conference

29th International Conference on
on Flexible
Flexible Automation
Automation and
and Intelligent Manufacturing
Intelligent Manufacturing
(FAIM2019), June 24-28, 2019, Limerick, Ireland.
(FAIM2019), June 24-28, 2019, Limerick, Ireland.

Towards
Towards safety
safety level
level definition
definition based
based on
on the HRN approach
the HRN approach for
for
industrial robots
industrial robots in
in collaborative
collaborative activities
activities
a a a
Magno
Magno Paiva
Paiva Hippertt
Hippertt a, Marcio Lazai Juniora, Anderson Luis Szejkaa, Osiris Canciglieri
, Marcio Lazai Junior , Anderson Luis Szejka , Osirisa Canciglieri
a a
Juniora, Eduardo Rocha Louresa, Eduardo Alves Portela Santos a
Junior , Eduardo Rocha Loures , Eduardo Alves Portela Santos
a
Industrialand Systems Engineering Graduate Program (PPGEPS), Pontifical Catholic University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil
a
Industrial and Systems Engineering Graduate Program (PPGEPS), Pontifical Catholic University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil

Abstract
Abstract
Since the first industrial revolution, factories seek to increase their profits by improving their performance and reducing costs in
Since the first industrial revolution, factories seek to increase their profits by improving their performance and reducing costs in
their products. With each new industrial revolution, new ideas on how to reduce costs appear. Currently, in industry 4.0, the fourth
their products. With each new industrial revolution, new ideas on how to reduce costs appear. Currently, in industry 4.0, the fourth
industrial revolution, advanced robotics emerges as one of the principal pillars and with-it collaborative robotics. Collaborative
industrial revolution, advanced robotics emerges as one of the principal pillars and with-it collaborative robotics. Collaborative
robotics is the branch of robotics that has the security systems needed to perform joint activities with humans. However, the
robotics is the branch of robotics that has the security systems needed to perform joint activities with humans. However, the
quantification of safety level varies depending on the location and more granularly from company to company. This work aims to
quantification of safety level varies depending on the location and more granularly from company to company. This work aims to
assign levels of safety that allow a robot to perform a collaborative activity. To propose such values, the work was started with a
assign levels of safety that allow a robot to perform a collaborative activity. To propose such values, the work was started with a
bibliographical review focused on defining the robots that would be approached, reviewing the ISO (International Organization for
bibliographical review focused on defining the robots that would be approached, reviewing the ISO (International Organization for
Standardization) related to machinery safety and defining the term of collaboration. Then, the method of calculation of the safety
Standardization) related to machinery safety and defining the term of collaboration. Then, the method of calculation of the safety
indicator was evaluated, in the case covered was the Hazard Rating Number (HRN), and then defined the intervals that will be
indicator was evaluated, in the case covered was the Hazard Rating Number (HRN), and then defined the intervals that will be
assigned to the robots that will perform collaborative activities. To validate the defined HRN intervals, a survey was developed
assigned to the robots that will perform collaborative activities. To validate the defined HRN intervals, a survey was developed
and distributed for engineers from automation sector of an automotive company trained in safety, in this survey, categories of
and distributed for engineers from automation sector of an automotive company trained in safety, in this survey, categories of
robots were placed for the engineers to assign HRN values to them. After the survey, the results were grouped and analyzed
robots were placed for the engineers to assign HRN values to them. After the survey, the results were grouped and analyzed
analytically. As a result, the proposed HRN intervals were validated because they fit the safety-level stipulated required for a robot
analytically. As a result, the proposed HRN intervals were validated because they fit the safety-level stipulated required for a robot
to perform collaborative activity. Also, it was concluded that a robot can perform a collaborative activities even if it has not been
to perform collaborative activity. Also, it was concluded that a robot can perform a collaborative activities even if it has not been
acquired for this purpose, it is enough that it meets the safety requirements proposed in the work.
acquired for this purpose, it is enough that it meets the safety requirements proposed in the work.
© 2019
© 2019 The
The Authors.
Authors, Published
Published byby Elsevier
Elsevier B.V.
B.V.
© 2019
This The
is an Authors,
open accessPublished by Elsevier
article under B.V.
the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer review under the responsibility of the scientific committee of the Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing 2019
Peer-review
Peer review under
underresponsibility of theof
the responsibility scientific committee
the scientific of the Flexible
committee Automation
of the Flexible and Intelligent
Automation Manufacturing
and Intelligent 2019 (FAIM2019
Manufacturing 2019)
Keywords: Collaborative Robots, Industrial Robots, Safety, Hazard Rating Number Introduction
Keywords: Collaborative Robots, Industrial Robots, Safety, Hazard Rating Number Introduction

2351-9789 © 2019 The Authors, Published by Elsevier B.V.

2351-9789 © 2019 The Authors, Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer review under the responsibility of the scientific committee of the Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing 2019
Peer review under the responsibility of the scientific committee of the Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing 2019

2351-9789 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing 2019 (FAIM 2019)
10.1016/j.promfg.2020.01.139
1482 Magno Paiva Hippertt et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 1481–1490
2 Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

1. Introduction

Automation is the area of exact sciences that focuses on automating processes, aiming for gains in several areas,
such as performance, ergonomics and economics. One of the branches of automation is the area of robotics. According
to the American Heritage Dictionary [1], "Robotics is the science or study of technology associated with the design,
fabrication, theory and application of robots". In addition, this area is one of the main pillars of industry 4.0.
Currently, the industrial value creation in the early industrialized countries is shaped by the development towards
the fourth stage of industrialization, the so-called Industry 4.0 [2]. Industry 4.0 focuses on the establishment of
intelligent products and production processes [3]. This intelligence is complemented by the agility of flexibility, for
this and other reasons enter the collaborative robots. These contribute to a productive process in the ease of
implantation and when operating with human collaborators. However, the main factor that supports the use of a robot
in collaborative activities is the safety from equipment to the people involved with it. One of the challenges is
developing solutions for personal safety under these conditions [4].
There are robots that are designed specifically for work in conjunction with humans. This equipment is sold as
collaborative robots, also known as COBOTs. COBOTs are the latest generation of robotic systems and they are
intended to work in collaboration activities with humans [5]. Before this equipment, some organizations already use
industrial robots in joint work with humans having additional safety measures [6]. However, these measures have their
own character in each organization. For that reason, the main problem is that there is no direct safety indicator or a
level of a common safety indicator to classify the activities to be developed as collaborative. These collaboratives
applications can involve robots sold as collaborative or robots without that denomination, however with additional
safety equipment. To propose something for this lack of level of safety, it was needed to reviewed international
standards and articles to find an indicator that provides a better approach to this kind of use of robot working together
with humans.
This article aims to propose a method of calculating the level of safety involved in the process with a robot and its
categorization with the feedback of the value coming from the calculation, as apt or inapt to collaborative activities.
It is expected that users of robots can use, and see, all robots as possible robots to a collaborative application.
The article is divided into six main chapters and this is the first one. The second one deals with the bibliographical
review that covers the definition of robots, the main international standards related to the safety of machines and some
definitions of collaborative activities coming from the norms. Chapter 3 follows some safety categorizations and the
choice of the measurement method that will be used to measure the safety level that will characterize a possible
collaborative activity attributed to the robots. The following chapters will be devoted to explaining and analyzing the
results, respectively, of the survey developed with experts for the validation of the proposal. Finally, follows the
conclusion with the final considerations and suggestions for future works.

2. Literature Review

2.1. What are robots

The concept of robots is very extensive, and it seems that there is no common sense among the authors. Numerous
definitions can be found from the first use of the term ROBOTA, by Karel Čapek, in his play "R.U.R" [7], in 1921, to
actual days. Still, according to Robotics Institute of America (RIA) [8], “A robot is a reprogrammable, multifunctional
manipulator designed to move material, parts, tools or specialized devices through variable programmed motions for
the performance of a variety of tasks”. Besides that, Oxford [9] defines a robot as: “A machine capable of executing
a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer”. ISO 8373 is responsible for
the nomenclature of subjects related to robots and robotic devices and it defines several categories of robots, with
different purposes of the application, different structures, with axes or not, and degrees of autonomy.
The diagram in Fig. 1 represents the robot categories. In this diagram, firstly, robots are divided between industrial
or service, and in this division, a robot can be framed in either one or another, depending only on its application, a
robot used in industrial automation applications, such as manufacturing, inspection, packaging and assembly is
industrial, and a robot used out of it is a service robot.
 Magno Paiva Hippertt et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 1481–1490 1483
Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 3

In the industrial category, a robot can be articulated, mobile or the union of both. The articulates, according to ISO
8373 [10] are “An automatic controlled, reprogrammable, multipurpose programmable manipulator in three or more
axes, which can be either fixed in place or mobile for use in industrial automation applications”. This macro category
does not have native security sensors, although, it has a new category of robots with native sensors inside it that are
going to be discussed next.
In the category of articulated industrial robots, there are collaborative robots. The main feature of this type of robot
is its ability to read forces, usually by a sensor at the base, and respond to anomalies with a schedule predefined by
the robot programmer. An important point is that a collaborative robot is not collaborative until someone programs it
to be. Every collaborative robot has an interface of loads and sensors, where it is necessary the programming of the
external force that escapes of the standard of operation.
An example of a mobile articulated industrial robot model is the robots, as described above, positioned on mobile
bases that position themselves depending on the activity developed. An example of this is the robot that does not have
the maximum range to take a piece from one place to another and, as a solution, stands on a moving platform that
brings it closer to the piece.
Continuing in the category of industrial robots, an example of mobile industrial robots are the automated guided
vehicles (AGV's) and rail guided vehicle (RGV’s), robots programmed to follow paths, taking parts to the work
stations, without the operator having to move to look for them. The difference between AGV and RGV is that AGV
follows a path made of magnetic line, contrast line among others, and the RGV only uses trails to move. In addition,
AVG's have natural scanners to ensure collision avoidance.
In service robots there is also the division between professional service robots, robots that are used for commercial
tasks, usually operated by a properly trained operator, such as public cleaners, hospital surgery robots, and personal
service robot, which are used for non-commercial tasks, usually by laymen, as household servants, automated
wheelchairs, among others.
The service robots can also be mobile and articulated, and they do not differ from the same industrial robots, only
their application is different. Thus, ISO: "While articulated robots used in production lines are industrial robots,
similar articulated robots used to serve food are service robots".
The last part to be described is the robotic devices, which according to ISO, are robots that meet the requirements
of industrial robots and fulfill the characteristics of service robots, but they are neither. As examples in this category
are the power assist device, such as exoskeletons, teleoperated device and two-axis industrial manipulator.

Fig. 1. Robot Categories representation. 2.2. Standards

related to safety and robots
The reference standard when dealing with robots and safety is ISO 10218 composed of two parts. Recently a new
standard was introduced to address the issue of collaborative robots in a more targeted way, this ISO is ISO TS 15066.
The ISO 10218 is named "Robots and robotic devices - Safety requirements for industrial robots" and is divided
into two parts. Part 1 deals specifically with robots [11] and part 2 Robot systems and integration [12].
In general, ISO 10218 brings the safety of robots and robotic devices to the diverse categories of machines. As the
collaborative activity demands a high level of safety, it would not be possible to approach the collaboration between
1484 Magno Paiva Hippertt et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 1481–1490
4 Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

robots and humans without addressing in question. The ISO 10218 was the first step towards developing international
guidelines for collaborative robots sharing their workspace with humans [13].
In the first part, ISO 10218-1, there is the introductory part dealing with some terms and definitions, general
requirements, hazard identification, and risk assessment, later a more focused approach to industrial robots like robots
stopping functions, speed control, operational modes, axis limiting and collaborative operation requirements [11].
According to section 5.10, "collaborative operation requirements", robots designed for collaborative operation
shall provide a visual indication when the robot is in collaborative operation and shall comply with one or more of the
requirements in 5.10.2 to 5.10.5, these being: (i) 5.10.2 – Safety-rated monitored stop; (ii) 5.10.3 – Hand guiding; (iii)
5.10.4 – Speed and separation monitoring; and 5.10.5 – Power and force limiting by inherent design or control.
These sections gave rise to the categories of collaboration addressed in ISO TS 15066 as well as ISO 10218 itself
was the forerunner for the development of ISO TS 15066 previously discussed. The need for a specific standard for
the collaboration came from the advance of industry 4.0 driven by the profit of industries derived from collaborative
activities [14].
Badly integrated integration may end up with the safety level of the device, so part 2 of ISO 10218 is as important
as the first. In the second part of ISO, Robot systems and integration, like the first part there is also an introductory
part and later a part with a greater focus on applications and equipment, but in this second part, the focus is mainly on
systems and integration.
Due to the great increase in the need for robots in collaborative operations that combine performance in repetitive
activities of the robots and the techniques and skills of the people, the need for an ISO focused on this type of activity,
ISO-TS 15066.
Usually, to achieve the safety of a robot's operation, it eliminates the possible contact of the operator with the
equipment while it is energized in any way. Applied to collaborative actions ISO-TS 15066 is a supplement to ISO
10218-1 and 10218-2 dealing with industrial robot safety standards.
In a collaborative robot operation, the proximity of the robot of the operator while robot stand energized is allowed,
therefore physical contact between then is possible and allowed since both are in a collaborative workspace.
Such permission provided in ISO-TS 15066 must be considerate in risk assessment developed based in ISO 10218-
2:2011 to. And a very important request of the ISO [15] is “The user should participate in risk assessment in the
design of the workspace”.
In a general way, ISO-TS 15066 specifies safety requirements approaching: (i) Collaborative industrial robot
system design; (ii) Requirements for collaborative robot system applications; (iii) Verification and Validation; and
(iv) Information for use.

2.3. Meaning of collaboration

To justify the article, it is necessary to define what the term “collaboration” means. Andy Barfield [16] in his article
"Collaboration" says: "Collaboration involves goal-setting along with others, sharing responsibilities and working
together to achieve more than could be achieved by an individual on their own". ISO-TS 15066 brings another
important definition. The collaborative operation: “State in which a purposely designed robotic system and an
operator work in a collaborative workspace", and the definition of a collaborative working zone, "space within the
operational space where the robot system (including the workpiece) and a human can perform tasks simultaneously
during the production operation".
These definitions will be important in scenarios where the robot and the operator are not working directly in contact,
but are still performing a task together, or need a shared space to perform their functions.
With the knowledge about the theme of robots and the theme of collaboration, it is possible to go deeper into the
topic of collaboration with robots, ISO 15066 separates in four, the types of collaborative operations, which will be
described below. This ISO is made to industrial articulated robots, but it’s also can be used for the knowledge of
collaborative activities.

• Collaborative Activity: Monitored Security Stop - This collaborative programming mode occurs when a robot is
working on its own, but it may occur that an operator needs to enter his or her workspace to perform some activity.
In this mode, if the human enters the operating area of the robot, the robot will activate all the brakes and will stop
 Magno Paiva Hippertt et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 1481–1490 1485
Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 5

its activity until the operator leaves its area. This programming mode usually works when the robot's action can
create some risk to the operator if it is in motion;
• Collaborative Activity: Manual Teaching - This application is used to guide the robot or teach the robot to do some
activity in a guided way. This type of application is widely used when it is necessary to carry out a new route of
operation without much time to program it. In this mode, the collaborative activity only occurs when the guiding
function is occurring, after which the robot must enter into another mode of collaboration;
• Collaborative Activity: Speed and Separation Monitoring - In speed monitoring, the industrial robot is monitored
by lasers or any system that checks the distance between the operators and the robot. This is because, in this mode
of operation, the robot responds to the distance that the operator is from the robot, with a reduction in its speed of
operation. If the operator is within one of the (preprogrammed) safety zones, the robot will respond with the speed
assigned to that region until it stops when the worker approaches too far. Unlike the monitored safety stop, it is not
necessary for the operator to release the robot for operation after it leaves its operating area because, in that mode,
the safety zones already play that role;
• Collaborative Activity: Limitation of Power and Strength - This mode is best known and is commonly what people
believe to be the only model of collaboration. In this model of collaborative activity, the robot works without any
safety device, such as lasers, sensors, vision systems. The robot uses its native safety system (sensitive torque
sensors) to know whether to stop or not. Basically, the robot is performing the activity together with an operator,
and in case of any collision between the two, or even of the robot with some other component, it stops and expects
some action, also preprogrammed, by the operator.

3. Safety level proposal for robots that perform collaborative activities

3.1. Why HRN instead of safety category

There are several approaches to treat safety category, the most known are requirements for safety-related parts of
control systems specified by five categories contained in ISO 13849-1 standard [17] The categories classify security
level respecting machinery ability to withstand faults and their behaviour when faults occur.
Another way to classify machinery safety is the one described at ISO 13849-1 [17] that refers to safety-related parts
of control systems too. This ISO is separated into two parts, the first one it's about general principles for design and
the second part is about validation. This ISO classifies by performance level, this classification considers levels and
add criteria of reliability of the hardware using MTTFd (mean time to dangerous failure), quality of the diagnostic
measures using in second category or above of DC (diagnostic Coverage) and sufficient measures against common
cause failures present in CCF (common cause failure).
After these considerations why do not use those categories? The standards classification specifies just the level of
security of the machine, but there is a method to classify safety level called HRN (Hazard Rating Number). The HRN
consider besides the machine, the process that the equipment is included on. For example, the variable NP (Number
of Persons at Risk), is about the number of persons involved in the process while the machine is working. Finally, a
collaborative action involves humans and machines, the standards classifications consider only machines, but HRN
considers both.

3.2. HRN Hazard Rating Number

In June 1990, SHP magazine published an article by Chris Steel on risk estimation. The article stated that techniques
for estimating the magnitude of risks are many and varied and can be developed for a particular industry. All
techniques involved some degree of subjectivity through and relied on past events to predict future responses. Chris
put forward the Hazard Number Rating as another way of estimating risk [18].
The HRN was suggested to classify the level of safety of a machine taking also into account the medium in which
it is inserted. To evaluate a robot to suggest that it can participate in collaborative action, this method fits perfectly by
including the environment in its calculation criteria.
According to ISO-TS 15066, 5.1, equipment that fit in robot classification can make collaborative applications
since meeting the requirements of ISO 10218-1 and ISO 10218, beyond the requirements of ISO-TS 15066 itself. In
1486 Magno Paiva Hippertt et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 1481–1490
6 Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

addition, it is proposed that HRN (Hazard Rating Number) analyzes, to be used to validate the collaborative action.
The composition of the HRN is defined by the following formula:

𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 ∗ 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 ∗ 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 ∗ 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁

The variables of this equation are described beyond: LO = Likelihood of Occurrence; FE = Frequency of Exposure;
DPH = Degree of Possible Harm; and NP = Number of Persons at Risk.
SHP published Chris Steel’s article on Risk Estimation which introduced Hazard Rating Numbers, by quantifying
Probability and Frequency of Exposure to a hazard, Number of People at risk and Maximum Probable Loss [19]. The
value that must be considered for each variable is present at the following tables:

Table 1. HRN variables and HRN variable value.

Likelihood of Occurrence (LO) Frequency of Exposure (FE)

0,033 Almost impossible; possible only under extreme 0,5 Annually
circumstances
1,0 Monthly
1,0 Highly unlikely, though conceivable 1,5 Weekly
1,5 Unlikely, but could occur 2,5 Daily
2,0 Possible, but unusual
4,0 Hourly
5,0 Even chance, could happen 5,0 Constantly
8,0 Probable; not surprised
10,0 Likely; only to be expected
15,0 Certain; no doubt
Degree of Possible Harm (DPH) Number of Persons at risk (NP)
0,10 Scratch/bruise 1,0 1-2 persons
0,5 Laceration/mild ill health effect 2,0 3-7 persons
1,0 Break – minor bone or minor illness (temporary) 4,0 8-15 persons
2,0 Break – major bone or major illness (temporary) 8,0 16-50 persons
4,0 Loss of 1 limb/eye or serious illness (temporary) 12,0 More than 50 persons
8,0 Loss of 2 limbs/eyes or serious illness (permanent)
15,0 Fatality

A very important variable in collaborative action is DPH. A high number of DPH means that if it has an accident,
regardless of human fault or a robot’s fault, the hazard will be serious. For that reason, the DHP is the most critical
value in the calculation of HRN for collaborative action.
As observed at HRN criteria, the bigger the value is, the more dangerous is the operation. According to Coulson
[19] intervals of values were assigned to a level of acceptance before safety. This classification is only a suggestion
by the author himself, but he suggests that each organization assign its own levels. These levels are classified according
to the 8 criteria: (i) 0 < HRN < 1 – Negligible; (ii) 1 ≤ HRN < 5 - Very low; (iii) 5 ≤ HRN < 10 – Low; (iv) 10 ≤
HRN < 50 – Significant; (v) 50 ≤ HRN < 100 – High; (vi) 100 ≤ HRN < 500 - Very high; (vii) 500 ≤ HRN < 1000
– Extreme; and (viii) 1000 ≤ HRN – Unacceptable.
Considering Coulson's suggestion to set the levels according to the need and the application of the equipment, it
was proposed values for HRN to collaborative actions. With these levels of safety, it is possible to stipulate an under
the limit for safety at collaboration. The values are: (i) HRN < 5 – Preferable; (ii) 5 ≤ HRN < 10 – Acceptable;
(iii) 10 ≤ HRN ≤ 50 – Acceptable under circumstances; and (iv) HRN > 50 – Unacceptable.
 Magno Paiva
Author Hippertt
name et al.Manufacturing
/ Procedia / Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 1481–1490
00 (2019) 000–000 1487
7

•
Fig. 2. HRN value proposal

• Preferable - HRN < 5 - As seen before, smaller the HRN safer the equipment. To achieve such a low final number
of HRN, the considerate index adopted by the variables should not be high. So, even that one of the indices were
very high the other will compensate for the final value of HRN. For example, if the number of persons at risk (NP)
was maximum, but the degree of possible harm (DPH) were low, the mean value of those two variables will be 1,2.
Considering the categories suggested by Coulson, the HRN < 5 range is a very low risk, therefore, preferable, since
the equipment contained in this category, probabilistically will not cause serious damage to those that interact with
the equipment.
• Acceptable - 5 ≤ HRN < 10 - It’s an intermediary level in this classification, but the HRN has their maximum
value at 13500 and as saw at the last figure, this level it’s much closer to the first step than the third. This is since
the acceptable value should be very safe because it is a collaborative action and have a person all the time dealing
with the robot. According to Coulson, this category is low risk, hence acceptable. It is possible to accept the low-
risk category because, due to the amplitude that the final HRN can take, more than 10000, this category represents
less than 1 chance in 1000 of the occurrences of some significant damage to the operators that interact directly with
the robot.
• Acceptable under circumstances – 10 ≤ HRN ≤ 50 - This category was included after several analyses of HRN
from some kinds of robots that nowadays play collaborative jobs in the industry, but for several interventions of
the environment and their usual shape could not fit in a collaborative category. This is the category most
controversial proposed in our work, is a category that addresses a range of values that may or may not include a
collaborative activity between the operator and the robot. Unlike the other categories that have well-defined
proposals as acceptable or not acceptable this category brings with it a step forward because it is the separation of
the obvious categories. An HRN below 10 is a very low value given its breadth and clearly represents equipment
with a high level of safety. An HRN bigger than 50 is too high as it is about a subject so sensitive that the health of
a person is therefore unacceptable.
• The circumstances in a similar way involve operator training, company philosophy, maintenance level and
equipment 5S. The acceptance of a robot in a collaborative activity that falls under this category of HRN will
depend mainly on the risks assessment of the equipment made by the responsible of the company that will
implement such activity. For example, there are companies around the world where the philosophy and training of
the people involved in the process are enough for a low rate of accidents, even with equipment that is not
categorized with a high level of safety.
• Unacceptable - HRN > 50 - This value of 50 was stipulated as a barrier between safe operations and dangerous
operations but considering some characteristics of the environment as safety equipment, peoples trained and proper
signs, this transition number ceases to be just a number and becomes a range. Even though it is often categorized
as a high risk, with the value bigger than 50 being slightly above the significant category, this risk is already
unacceptable for a collaborative activity. As previously seen the activity is characterized by a constant interaction
between man and machine, the high risk being clearly unacceptably compromising the health of the operator.

4. A survey to define HRN for the categories of robots

As previously stated, the HRN requires that experts conduct a study of the situation of the application of the robot
so that its value can be determined. Therefore, a very specific sample profile was needed to answer the questions. For
a more accurate analysis, the help of 10 specialists, all engineers in the industrial automation and robotics of Renault
1488 Magno Paiva Hippertt et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 1481–1490
8 Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

América, security experts with TÜV Rheinland training, who constantly used the concepts of safety in their daily
tasks, when requested.
With the selected group, several approaches were considered, including personal interviews with each of the
engineers, but, when testing this type of approach with other employees, it was realized that it took a great deal of
time to complete the study, and, in addition, questions asked by the interviewees about the idea of using HRN to define
collaboration influenced interviewees to try to fit robots into collaborative activities. Therefore, in order not to
influence the group of engineers, it was chosen as an impersonal and online survey.
The surveys contain four questions for each one of six types of robots, each group of questions has an introduction
about robots and required a self-assessment of the engineers about their knowledge about the theme “safety” and the
constancy of their use. After that, each section presented a description of the macro category from which the
exemplified robot fitted, and a description of the robot presented. And, within each section, the questions, based on
proposed by the HRN and Coulson [19], were made. These questions are: (i) What is the probability of an accident
involving this type of robot in the industry? (ii) How often do operators are exposed to the robot during operation?
(iii) What is the level of damage resulting from an accident involving this robot? (iv) How many people are at risk
during the activity of this robot? (The number of people who are directly attached to it)
The alternatives for each question can be found in table 1. In addition, to not influence the respondents, the values
used to calculate the HRN were hidden, leaving only the text of the answer

5. Results

After the survey was carried out by all the specialists, it was possible to begin the analysis of the results. For this,
all the data of the answers were placed on Microsoft Excel and the values of the calculation of the HRN were assigned
to their respective answers according to the table 1, and, with that, it was possible to determine the HRN of each robot,
according to each specialist. The next step was to average the HRNs and analyze each of them graphically. The figure
below represents the average HRN according to experts:

Fig. 3. Average HRN per Robot.

As expected, personal service robots were rated with the lowest HRN of all, as they are equipped with security
devices to operate in environments that have humans. Above them are the COBOTs, robots designed directly for
collaborative activities, and which also follow measures aimed at safety. The difference in the HRN result between
them occurred in the DPH, which, in the case of the COBOTs, tends to be larger.
Robotic devices, although with a low HRN, according to experts, are more dangerous than the two previously
mentioned, because they are devices in which the FE was maximum, and, can generate greater damage in case of an
accident.
 Magno Paiva Hippertt et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 1481–1490 1489
Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 9

The professional service robots, although having values very close to LO, FE and NP, of robotic devices and
COBOTs, had a difference in DPH, representing a significant increase in the final HRN value.
The industrial mobile robots were above the others because the NP is significantly higher, even though the DPH is
smaller, and the LO is also larger.
The latter case was the articulated industrial robots, in which the final HRN value had a significant increase in
relation to the others. The standard articulated industrial robot does not have nature sensors that make it safe for any
type of work, as previously mentioned. What happens with this type of robot is a preparation of the robot's work area,
so that it can develop its activities with a better level of security. And yet, in case of an accident, the experts considered
that it will probably generate a fatality.

Fig. 4. The categorization of robots approached according to the proposed HRN

After the result of the survey, it is possible to verify which of the categories of robots approached fit the ranges of
HRN proposed here. This separation can be seen in the figure above.
According to the figure, it was concluded that the robot categories are consistent with the proposed HRN intervals
since the Industrial collaborative robots and the personal robots service are already sold for collaborative activities.
Robotic devices, professional service robot and the mobile robot can be used in collaborative activities with the
necessary security adjustments. And finally, the industrial robot, that achieved a high result in the HRN and should
not be used in collaborative activities the way it was designed, however, with changes that guarantee the level of safety
and the HRN recalculated resulting in a value below 50, this type of robot can perform collaborative activities. An
example of a robot that emerged from this adaptation is the industrial collaborative robots, which have a low HRN,
due to a series of security adjustments, to work with the minimum extra resources needed after their acquisition, but
without that care, they would return to be standard industrial articulated robots. A standard industrial robot may not
have as low an HRN as a collaborative industrial robot, but it may be suitable for collaborative action if safety
standards are met. Since all robots have an HRN value, it is possible to say that all, without exception, have a
percentage, albeit derisory, of causing a damage, which can be used as proof that, regardless of the initial category
from which robot, it is possible that the equipment can fits under collaborative activities since safety measures that
lower the HRN are taken.

6. Conclusion

Based on the data presented and the survey carried out, it is possible to verify that there is a correlation between
the security installed by the manufacturers in their robots, with the degree of collaboration. The main factor that will
determine if this robot will work in a collaborative action or not, is the team of security experts and the engineers
responsible for analyzing the project and who will do the safety calculation. A robot called collaborative by the
manufacturer may not perform a collaborative activity if, by chance, use some device attached to it that makes the
security questionable. And an industrial robot, for example, with the highest HRN, can be considered a collaborative
robot if it follows rules that make it safe to perform collaborative work.
To reach this conclusion it was necessary to study the regulatory norms, the meaning of collaboration and the
meaning of a robot, as well as studies on mechanisms of risk assessment. With the knowledge obtained from the
literary review, and the decision to use the HRN as a basis for the calculation of security, it was proposed that an HRN
can be used to determine if the robot could fit into a collaborative activity, thus becoming a collaborative robot. With
1490 Magno Paiva Hippertt et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 1481–1490
10 Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

these decisions, it was necessary a form of approach that used experts in security and robotics for a more accurate
assessment of the value of HRN, and, as a solution to this, a survey to approach the subject was used, where the
questions proposed by the HRN were made to each of the experts to each of the groups of robots. These questions
were anticipated by a brief explanation of the robot in question and, in addition, an evaluation of the interviewee's
level of knowledge, from 1 to 10, about security and robotics was requested, ensuring that the interviewee knew about
the theme and was going to be relevant. With the answers given by the engineers, it was possible to calculate the HRN
and to structure the data within the proposed categories.
With the results obtained, people are expected to understand that it is not just the nomenclature given by a
manufacturer that makes a robot collaborative. Safety methods of measure such as HRN must be used, and if the safety
values determined by it are low, the robot will not be able to perform a collaborative action.
In this study only one robot of each category was used to demonstrate that all his category can fit into collaborative
activities, however, there are several robots in each of the categories, and several other categories that were not used
in this article, beyond that, only one safety method was used. For future studies, it is necessary to include in the
research more robots of all categories not covered by this study, and, in addition, disseminate the survey to more safety
specialists. It is thought that there are other safety methods as, required performance level (PLr) and safety integrity
level (SIL), that can be used to classify collaborative actions in complement to HRN.

References

[1] Houghton Mifflin, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1969.
[2] G. Seliger e T. Stock, “Opportunities of Sustainable Manufacturing in Industry 4.0,” em 13th Global Conference on Sustainable
Manufacturing - Decoupling Growth from Resource Use, 2016.
[3] M. Brettel, N. Friederichsen, M. Keller e M. Rosenberg, “How Virtualization, Decentralization and Network,” em International Journal of
Information and Communication Engineering, 2014.
[4] B. Matthias, H. J. S. Kock, M. Kallman, I. Lundberg e R. Mellander, “Safety of collaborative industrial robots: Certification possibilities for
a collaborative assembly robot concept,” em IEEE International Symposium on Assembly and Manufacturing (ISAM), 2011.
[5] M. Bernard, "The Future Of Work: Are You Ready For Smart Cobots?" 2018.
[6] BMW Quality Assurance Using Large Robots Working Safely Next to People. [Filme]. Landshut, Bavaria: KUKA - Robots & Automation,
2017.
[7] Č. Karel, R.U.R., 1921.
[8] Robotics Institute of America, “Robotics Roday,” News, p. 7, 1980.
[9] Oxford, Definition of robot in English, OUP Oxford, 2013.
[10] International Organization for Standardization, “ISO 8373,” 2012. [Online]. Available: https://ifr.org/industrial-robots. [Acesso em 15 01
2019].
[11] ISO/TC 199 Safety of machinery, ISO 10218-1: Robots and robotic devices - Safety requirements for industrial robots - Part 1: Robots,
Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2011.
[12] ISO/TC 299 Robotics, “ISO 10218-2: Robots and robotic devices - Safety requirements for industrial robots - Part 2: Robot systems and
integration,” International Organization for Standardization, 2011.
[13] S. Haddadin, S. Haddadin, A. Khoury, T. Rokahr, S. Parusel, R. Burgkart, A. Bicchi e A. Albu-Schäffer, "On making robots understand
safety: Embedding injury knowledge into control," The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 31, nº 13, 01 November 2012.
[14] G. Schuh, T. Potente, C. Wesch-Potente, A. R. Weber e J.-P. Prote, "Collaboration Mechanisms to Increase Productivity in the Context of
Industrie 4.0," 2nd CIRP Robust Manufacturing Conference, pp. 51-56, 13 September 2014.
[15] ISO/TC 299 Robotics, Robots and robotic devices -- Collaborative robots, Suiça: International Organization for Standardization, 2016.
[16] A. Barfield, “Collaboration,” ELT Journal, vol. 70, nº 2, p. 222–224, April 2016.
[17] ISO/TC 199 Safety of machinery, ISO 13849-1: Safety of machinery - Safety-related parts of control systems - Part 1: General principles for
design, 3 ed., 2015, p. 86.
[18] C. Stewart, “Throwback Thursday: Risk Estimation,” 2015.
[19] D. Coulson, “shponline,” SHP, 26 06 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.shponline.co.uk/risk-estimation-25-years/. [Acesso em 24 09
2018].